Gerald Giam

Big boys discuss Bloggers’ Code of Conduct

Several months ago, there was a debate in Singapore blogosphere about coming up with a Code of Conduct. While a few of us supported it, the majority of our fellow local bloggers and readers opposed it. The idea ended up being stillborn.

It was reported today that Tim O’Reilly, the guy who coined the term “Web 2.0”, and Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, have teamed up to draft a Bloggers’ Code of Conduct. The Draft Code can be viewed and edited on (you guessed it) Wikipedia.

I’m not going ga-ga over this just because a couple of Yanks have proposed it. But if even our generation’s prime proponents and facilitators of free speech are talking about a Code of Conduct, I think it deserves a second look. I’ve looked through the Draft Code. Personally I think it is fair, but its scope is rather narrow. It seems to be focused mainly on readers’ comments rather than the blogs themselves.

You sell us sand, we’ll help you…

The Myanmar junta has offered to be a “long-term supplier of sand, cement and granite to Singapore”. Since this offer has been announced so loudly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we can safely assume that the offer will be accepted.

I noticed that the caption under the picture in TODAY reads “Lending each other a hand”. Well, Myanmar is lending us a hand by selling us sand. I wonder what quid pro quo arrangement they could be expecting in return?

Perhaps a toned down rhetoric on their lack of progress on their Roadmap to Democracy? (Singapore’s pressure played no small part in getting Myanmar to pass on its ASEAN chairmanship in 2005.)

That we do not push for an ASEAN Human Rights Commission which would likely impact Myanmar the most? (So far only Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand have been pushing for that as part of the upcoming ASEAN Charter. Singapore has been very silent on it.)

That we do not ask them to free Aung San Suu Kyii and do not make statements criticising them (the same way as we criticise North Korea and Iran)?

That we jam all attempts by the US and European countries to take Myanmar to the UN Security Council? (Don’t underestimate the ability of our diplomats in New York. They’ve performed such feats before.)

In all likelihood, the proceeds from the sale of sand, granite and concrete will go almost directly into the pockets of the generals, via the companies that they own, and in the process prop up the regime the same way that the drug trade does. Sadly, because this will benefit Singapore’s economy, we can expect that moral considerations can take a backburner. Nevermind that this might be the same sand that has soaked up the blood of the thousands of civilians and monks that the military gunned down during the 8 August 1988 (8888) Uprising. (I have an ex-colleague who was a diplomat in Rangoon then who actually witnessed the students being fired upon.)

"Alternative elite" needed for S’pore’s long-term survival

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew told reporters today in Australia that Singapore cannot afford to have a “revolving door” style of government, but instead needs “good, competent people who will stay (for the long term)” in government.

He warned that Singapore’s economy will be in jeopardy if ministers do not receive their multi-million dollar salaries, and that the “cure for all this talk (the debate about ministers’ salaries) is really a good dose of incompetent government”, which will result in our women becoming “maids in other persons’ countries”.

Apart from the classic insensitivity to our neighbours, MM Lee’s remarks reflect an unwavering confidence in the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP)’s ability to maintain its high standards in perpetuity. This overconfidence has led the PAP — and indeed many Singaporeans — to believe that the “men in white” are the only hope for our nation’s future prosperity, forever and ever.

“Revolving door” is a metaphor commonly used to describe American politics where its elites alternate between appointments in the government and private sector, depending on which political party is in power. For example, Dr Condoleezza Rice was a National Security Council Director under President George Bush (senior), returned to academia as the Provost of Stanford University during the Clinton Administration, and was then appointed National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State by President George W. Bush.

Having two teams of sound administrators has in no small part contributed to the political stability of the US. Americans, and indeed the world, can be confident that no matter who lives in the White House, the US will still continue to function along the same principles that have contributed to the country’s economic success and political stability for over 200 years.

This bipartisan system has played out successfully not only in developed countries, but also in Third World democracies. In India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lost power in a shock election in 2004 to a coalition led by the Congress Party. Nevertheless, life continued as before, and India continues to enjoy sterling growth rates under the leadership of the original architect of India’s economic liberalisation, Dr Manmohan Singh, who himself was relegated to the Opposition when the BJP was in power.

Outside of the political arena, having a backup or a good reserve team is seen as essential in almost every major endeavour, from computer data management to sports. In a very memorable interview with The Straits Times several years ago, former permanent secretary Ngiam Tong Dow had this to say:

“..we should open up politically and allow talent to be spread throughout our society so that an alternative leadership can emerge. So far, the People’s Action Party’s tactic is to put all the scholars into the civil service because it believes the way to retain political power forever is to have a monopoly on talent. But in my view, that’s a very short term view. It is the law of nature that all things must atrophy. Unless SM (Lee Kuan Yew) allows serious political challenges to emerge from the alternative elite out there, the incumbent elite will just coast along. At the first sign of a grassroots revolt, they will probably collapse just like the incumbent Progressive Party to the left-wing PAP onslaught in the late 1950s. I think our leaders have to accept that Singapore is larger than the PAP.”

Singapore‘s first team of leaders, including Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and S Rajaratnam, did a phenomenal job transforming a muddy swamp to a gleaming metropolis. However, continuing to expect successive generations of PAP cadres to maintain and improve on Singapore’s success is somewhat like continuing to pump all one’s money into a single equity stock. Although the initial purchase of the stock may have been a wise decision which yielded good dividends, any investment advisor would caution that putting all our eggs in one basket, as opposed to maintaining a balanced portfolio, is a recipe for disaster.

Past success is no guarantee of future performance, as the familiar disclaimer on unit trusts warns. When our current PAP leaders boast about how excellent leadership has brought us our current success, they seem to forget that it was our forefathers, not them, who built Singapore into the success it is today. Statistics show that most family businesses do not succeed beyond the third generation.

Singapore needs an “alternative elite” that is prepared and ready to take over should the “starters” falter. This alternative elite need not reside in the Opposition parties (for now), but it is not healthy to continue this situation whereby almost every high-powered critic of the government — including CEOs, top academics and even popular bloggers — is co-opted to be part of the ruling party’s machinery, whether as PAP politicians, NMPs, ambassadors or civil servant-scholars. Obviously the PAP has every right to attempt to cream of as much of the talent for themselves as possible. So it really depends on our talented and capable Singaporeans to decide whether to allow themselves to be co-opted, or to remain free to speak and act according to their own consciences, for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans.

Recent Political and economic developments in Malaysia

I attended a talk by Dato’ Dr Michael Yeoh this afternoon at Raffles Hotel on the topic, “Recent political and economic developments in Malaysia”. The event was organised by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS).

Dato’ Yeoh is the co-founder and CEO of the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI), a prominent Malaysian think-tank, which captured headlines a few months ago when it released a report about the Malay equity stake in the economy.

He began by summarizing the key events that shaped the Malaysian political scene in 2006, then provided a assessment of what lies ahead in 2007.

Key events in 2006

2006 started well for Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, as his Ninth Malaysia Plan was initially well received. However, several events led to a sharp rise in political tensions in the nation, including:

1. Former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed’s personal attacks on PM Abdullah’s policies.

2. Reductions in oil subsidies which led to a sharp rise in fuel prices.

3. Increased road toll prices.

4. Numerous anti-government public demonstrations, most of which which were “blacked out” by the mainstream media but carried freely on the Internet.

5. The “Bloody Sunday” incident. On 28 June 2006, a protest in frot of Kuala Lumpur City Centre (KLCC) descended into chaos and many protestors were beaten by riot police. The Malaysian human rights commission (SUHAKAM), on which Dato’ Yeoh sits as a board member, later found that there was a “disproportionate use of force” by the police on the protestors.

6. The Article 11 Coalition of several ethnic minority and liberal Muslim groups raised the very sensitive issue of religious freedom (or lack thereof) in Malaysia, arousing tensions among conservative Malay groups. One of their public meetings was forcibly shut down by the government.

7. There was a general perception that the Malaysian economy was not doing well, probably due to the shift in the “components of growth” to industries with “less multiplier effect”.

8. ASLI’s corporate equity distribution study, which came under attack by Malay groups. Using alternative methodologies, the study estimated that the bumiputera (ethnic Malay) corporate share in the country may be as high as 45 per cent — considerably higher than the official figure of 19 per cent and higher than the targeted 30 per cent share that was meant to be achieved under the New Economic Policy (NEP).

9. During the televised UMNO Youth general assembly, the UMNO Youth president Hishamuddin Hussein unsheathed a kris (a Malay warrior’s dagger), which is a symbol of Malay pride. He came under fire from Chinese groups for his provocative actions.

10. The Sarawak state elections saw many urban Chinese voters ditching the Barisan Nasional (BN) for the Opposition, causing no small concern among the BN’s Chinese parties, the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and Gerakan.

Looking ahead in 2007

2007 brought a “fresh spring” for PM Abdullah, as Tun Dr Mahathir toned down his criticism of his successor. PM Abdullah’s deputy prime minister, Najib Tun Razak, continued to demonstrate his steadfast loyalty to and support for the prime minister.

The unveiling of the Iskandar Development Region (IDR) in Johor generated much excitement and a “feel good factor” for the country. Many Malaysians are hopeful that the relaxing of the bumiputera policy in the IDR could herald more good news in the near future. It is significant this move is being done in Johor, which is the power base of UMNO.

In addition, Malaysia’s foreign reserves have increased significantly under PM Abdullah, many times more than the kitty during Dr Mahathir’s reign as PM.

Timing of next GE?

There is speculation that the next General Elections could take place sometime in the later part of this year, in order to capitalize on the “feel good factor” and before former finance minister Anwar Ibrahim can legally contest elections. Dato’ Yeoh felt that there was “no reason” for Pak Lah (as PM Abdullah is affectionately known) to call for early elections. If elections are delayed until next year, it would give the PM more time to roll out another “feel good” budget, which could see the lowering of personal income tax. Also, the next few months will witness several more Ninth Malaysia Plan programmes being rolled out.

Dato’ Yeoh did an assessment of how he thought the BN will fare during the next elections. He was of the view that it would be impossible for the BN to repeat the sterling results of the March 2004 elections, but it will easily maintain its two-thirds majority in Parliament. He pointed out that support for UMNO is still very strong in the rural heartlands.

The key electoral challenge facing the BN would be retaining urban support. A recent survey revealed that 65 per cent of urban voters want a change and will vote for the Opposition. This will pose a tremendous challenge to the MCA, the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) and Gerakan, whose seats are mainly in the cities.

The fight for the state of Penang will be the most important contest during the elect
ions. The opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan are expected to pick up many more seats in the coming election. Dato’ Yeoh assessed that they could more than double their number of seats in Parliament up to 30 — mostly at the expense of MCA, Gerakan and MIC.

However, Dato’ Yeoh was confident that UMNO’s position is still stable, as most rural voters still support the party. Parti Islam (PAS) can be expected to pick up 14 – 15 seats at best, compared to more than 80 for UMNO. Although the PAS stronghold is in the northern states, these states have only a few seats. In fact, Dato’ Yeoh pointed out, if UMNO could retain all their Johor seats, it would make no difference to their position even if they lost Kelantan and Trengganu.

With these high expectations of a BN victory, the result would therefore be considered a “poor performance” if BN lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament and they lost the states of Penang and Kedah — all unlikely scenarios.

Concluding, Dato’ Yeoh said that the key challenges facing Malaysia are the vital need to bridge the racial divide; maintaining political stability by the BN retaining its two-thirds majority; reducing or eliminating corruption; redressing inequalities; and making the economy more open and competitive.

Q & A discussion

During the Q & A discussion, some interesting insights were raised. Unfortunately due to the imposition of the Chatham House Rule by the chairman, Ambassador K. Kesavapany, the discussion cannot be freely reported. But here are some of the notable remarks made from the floor and the speakers:

It was pointed out that some of the most capable Malays in the country are in Johor. They are therefore poised to compete with the best that will come in to invest in the IDR. Therefore it is unlikely that there will be a repeat of the racial tensions of 1960s even if affirmative action policies in IDR were relaxed, simply because the vast inequalities have been largely levelled out. There is also now a new group of Malay business leaders with a modern outlook and no longer depend on patronage to succeed.

There appeared to be much optimism about what the Abdullah government would be achieving in the coming months. It was pointed out that PM Abdullah’s style is much more deliberate, bottom up, institutional-based (instead of personality-based) and consultative than his predecessor’s. Important issues now get debated over several Cabinet meetings, unlike in the past when few ministers spoke and most issues were basically fait accompli by the time they reached the Cabinet.

Will high salaries really attract the right people?

Next Monday (9 April), Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will announce in Parliament the salary revisions for himself and his ministers. There is little doubt that we will be seeing a whopping increase in their salaries, perhaps by as much as $1 million a year (which is the current shortfall from the so-called “benchmark” against the 48 top earners in Singapore).

I highly recommend reading a Straits Times forum letter by Ng Kok Lim (2 April 2007), titled “Strength of S’pore rests on people not just govt”. Amidst all the self-congratulatory statements to justify the high salaries, Ng pointed out that the commendable achievement of bringing Singapore from “Third World to First” was done by the previous generation of leaders, not the present politicians who are benefiting from the million dollar salaries (with the exception of MM Lee, of course). He added that “paying my politician top dollar may not dent my pocket, but it angers many ordinary Singaporeans who have to pay more for everything without having the freedom to write their own paycheck”.

I do not oppose high salaries for ministers, senior civil servants, or even heads of charities and religious organisations. I think all of the aforementioned generally make a very valuable contribution to our nation, and they should be rewarded for their hard work and, in many cases, sacrifices.

However, we need to distinguish between acceptably high salaries, and extravagant salaries. I concede that the US$170,000 salary that the British prime minister draws is slightly on the low side, given the tremendous weight of responsibility that a leader of a country needs to bear. But I would say anything beyond S$500,000 a year is not fitting for a public servant whose salaries are drawn from taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

The government’s public line for paying its leaders such high salaries is two-fold:

1. To prevent corruption

2. To retain talent

I won’t elaborate further. The SPH and MediaCorp newspapers do a commendable job explaining the official reasons for the wage hikes.

I have a slightly different take about the reasons for the extravagant salaries that our leaders pay themselves:

Firstly, it’s an issue of status. In our East Asian culture and particularly among the ministers’ generation, your status in society is — rightly or wrongly — determined primarily by the salaries you draw. If you are drawing a high salary, you must be very important, and vice-versa.

Our political leaders’ paramount concern is how Singaporeans view them. This explains why they do not tolerate any slights against their integrity and their right to rule by opposition politicians, political commentators or the media, as this, in their view, will lower the esteem that Singaporeans have for them. Therefore, paying themselves salaries that are benchmarked against the top earners in Singapore reinforces their status at the pinnacle of society.

Secondly, the PAP is “looking for love in all the wrong places”. It’s definition of “talent” is extremely narrow. PAP grassroots activists, no matter how loyal and passionate, almost never make it into the ministerial ranks nowadays, because political savvy and familiarity with the ground are not considered to be as important than technocratic know-how. In our political leaders’ eyes, “talent” is broadly defined as people who have successfully helmed huge organisations, be it listed companies or government ministries (as reflected in the qualifying criteria for the presidency).

For high-flying civil servants, political office is simply the next step in one’s career progression in the public service. It is not hard for them to make that transition, even if the money is not fantastic. But for private sector head honchos, it is a different issue altogether. They may not have that same passion for public service and common citizens, nor the experience in dealing with the government bureaucracy. They are usually already earning very high salaries, which they see as their right given their contribution to their companies’ profits. So in order to woo these corporate high-flying millionaires, the PAP government is trying to lower the opportunity costs for them. It is no secret that many of today’s PAP MPs are reluctant politicians.

It baffles me how someone would need to see a $2 million dollar carrot before accepting a call to lead one’s nation. Are these the kind of leaders we want leading our country? I sure hope that none of our current batch of ministers made their decision to enter politics based on the salary that was offered. And if they didn’t, what makes them so sure that they need to hike ministerial salaries even more to attract the next generation of leaders?

Show that disgusting anti-smoking ad on Prime Time!

I’m not an avid TV-watcher, but the Health Promotion Board (HPB)’s latest anti-smoking ad has got to be the most disgusting and shocking one I have ever seen — and I applaud HPB for it!

This ad has caused unease among some parents of young children who are concerned that their kids’ delicate psyches would be damaged by the graphic image of a mouth cancer sufferer. One mother complained that her nine-year old daughter (that’s a primary 4 student, not a toddler!) was so traumatised by the commercial that she had a nightmare that night, waking up at 3am screaming for her daddy. Others had complained that screening the ad during dinner time turned them off from their food.

In response to public complaints, HPB has revised its advertising timing and channels “to minimise causing any alarm to young children”, according to its CEO Lam Pin Woon. The ad will now be aired only after 8pm.

I’m glad that it will still be aired early enough for most children to watch during “Prime Time” TV programmes. In my opinion, it is children and young teens who should be the target of anti-smoking ads, not older teens or adults. Trying to get an older smoker to quit is almost as hard as getting him to change his religion — it is possible, but not easy. If, however, such ads can sear in impressionable young minds the shocking consequences of smoking, it will forever be a subconscious deterrent to even pick up the habit, regardless of peer pressure when they hit adolescence.

I don’t know what the statistics are showing, but I seem to notice many more teenagers smoking nowadays. I believe teens are not ignorant of the health risks when they take up smoking. But if it is a choice between looking cool in front of your friends, or suffering some disease when you are 60, teens who are already suffering from self-esteem issues would likely choose to light up.

Thus, the thrust of the anti-smoking message to teens should not be to focus solely on the health risks, but to work with families, youth organisations, religious organisations and other social service organisations to raise the self-worth of teens. If they really loved themselves, do you think they would pick up a habit that is not only destructive to their health, but damages their image as well?

This might appear to go beyond the responsibility of HPB, but what is the use of tackling superficial issues alone without tackling the root problems? A multi-agency approach is therefore necessary to lower the smoking rate among our young.

——–

Update: This is Health Promotion Board’s reply to my feedback:

Dear Gerald

Thank you for your support and feedback. Since the launch of our Campaign, HPB has seen a 5-fold increase in the number of calls to QuitLine from smokers desiring to quit smoking. We have also received many compliments from smokers and non-smokers alike. Nonetheless, we give all feedback due consideration. In addition to re-scheduling our advertisement to run after 8pm, we will! also preface it with a warning.

2 This TV advertisement is the first phase of our 3-month long smoking control campaign and presents a fatal and debilitating consequence of smoking to motivate smokers to quit and encourage non-smokers to urge their loved ones to stop smoking. The second phase of our campaign adopts an encouraging tone to urge smokers to quit and non-smokers to support their efforts.

3 The reality is that 1 in 2 smokers will die from smoking-related diseases. Each smoker will on average die 13 to 14 years earlier than non-smokers. Disability, disfigurement and early death due to smoking are very real. As you have correctly pointed out, we need to use a multi-pronged strategy which starts with our children. We are engaing schools, youth organisations, family service centres and other like-minded organisations to help our youth lead a smoke free life. Our National Smoking Control Programme also includes mass media campaigns, public education, provision of smoking cessation services, legislation and tobacco taxation. These strategies has helped Singapore lower its smo= ng prevalence rate from 20% in 1984 to 12.6% in 2004, one of the lowest smoking prevalence rate in the world. We hope to continue to help more smokers quit the habit.

4 A survey conducted by HPB, also showed that the median age of children picking up smoking is about 12 years. Thus we hope that parents can also take this opportunity to educate their children on the fatal consequences of smoking as well.

Regards

Mr Norman Chong | Manager | Smoking Control, Adult Health Division | Health Promotion Board |

Cookie cutters toeing the line?

(Photo: TODAY Online)

This was an award-winning shot by TODAY photojournalist Trevor Tan of PAP candidates during last year’s General Election.

Two phrases come to mind: “cookie cutter” and “toeing the line”.

I hope this latest batch of PAP MPs can prove me wrong. Unfortunately, after watching their untempered adulation of Budget 2007 (which MP Fatimah Lateef said was “full of love and compassion”), and their jockeying to show off how well they can ridicule the Opposition (Lee Bee Wah’s “ai pang sai kar che jamban” [looking for a toilet only when one need to take a crap]), I’m not optimistic. I hope the Opposition can step up to the plate to give the Ministers a better run for their soon-to-be $2 million salaries

Vessel detentions show Jakarta’s disconnect with its people

It is shocking to learn from the MFA spokesman yesterday that Indonesia has yet to release the vessels carrying granite from the Riau Islands to Singapore. The press release did not indicate how many vessels were still being detained, but based on remarks in Parliament on 5 March by Foreign Minister George Yeo, some 12 tugboats and 12 barges — most of which fly the Singapore flag — have been detained. On Friday 23 March, The Jakarta Post reported that at least 20 barges have been detained by the Indonesian Navy since early February — that’s almost two full months!

(Photo: WN)

Aside for the obvious implications on the construction industry in Singapore, which relies heavily on sand and granite imports from Indonesia, the financial impact on Indonesian companies in the business of sand and granite exports has been tremendous. Riau Granite Members Association (APGR) member Muchamad Syafei told The Jakarta Post that business has been “badly affected”, as each vessel can carry between 2,000 and 3,000 tons of granite, with up to 3 round trips to Singapore per day. At US$21 per ton (which was the price of granite before the detentions began), that works out to over US$1 million in losses per week for the Indonesian companies.

And we haven’t even factored in the losses from the ban on sand exports. Based on a 11 March report in Indonesian daily Kompas, Indonesia used to sell sand to Singapore at US$7 per ton. Each day, more than 16,000 tons of sand were being exported from Indonesia to Singapore. The losses in sand revenue for Indonesian companies: US$672,000 per week.

The 17-member APGR has made a complaint to the Trade Ministry, and some companies are even considering suing the Navy for its massive losses. All this while, the Trade Ministry, including its minister and director general, has been denying that there is any ban on granite exports. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda also assured George Yeo on 15 March that the Indonesian Cabinet was not considering a ban on granite exports. However, he said that some of the detained barges were “in breach of regulations”. (The Navy alleges that the exporters are smuggling sand concealed under the granite, but the Indonesian exporters have insisted that these were just dust from the crushed granite.)

Jakarta has already let the cat out of the bag that all these bans and detentions are nothing to do with environmental damage, but are instead intended to pressure Singapore to sign an extradition treaty so they can hunt down corrupt businessmen and officials seeking refuge in the city state. Given the conflicting statements and actions of the Indonesian Trade Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the Navy, it is possible that each of these power centres in Indonesia are playing one-upmanship games in order to claim credit for what is eventually going to be a signed extradition treaty. (Singapore has already said that it will sign the Treaty once the details of the parallel Defence Cooperation Agreement are worked out.)

All this points to a serious disconnect between the government in Jakarta and commercial interests in their own Riau Province. While Jakarta officials continue to play games to demonstrate their nationalist credentials, their own people and businesses suffer. Singapore can always find alternative sources of sand and granite. But do the Indonesian companies and their workers have alternative sources of revenue and employment?

Increasing access to higher education imperative for Singapore

In my previous post, I argued that making higher education affordable for the masses is the best form of public welfare as it gives all students, including those from low income families, an opportunity to graduate from university, which will give them the necessary headstart in Singapore’s knowledge-based economy. This will not only greatly improve the employment opportunities and social mobility of the low income students, but it will alleviate Singapore’s shortage of knowledge workers and hence reduce the need for such large numbers of foreign talent.

There are many challenges students face in completing their university studies, including financial difficulties, low family expectations, lack of effort and weak academic ability. This article will focus on the financial aspect, as it is the probably only factor that could prevent a student from completing university even though he or she has overcome all the other factors.

The Ministry of Education (MOE) has always claimed that no student will be denied a university education because of financial difficulties. It claims that all cases of genuine financial need will be met by bursaries.

Unfortunately, bursaries don’t cover the full tuition costs. The annual tuition fees in local public universities range from $6,100 for arts and engineering, to $17,500 for medicine and dentistry (including the MOE tuition grant, which is given to all students, even foreigners). Most bursaries are valued between $800 and $2,000 per year, based on the level of financial need. (One needs to have a gross monthly per capita household income of less than $900 to qualify for an $800 MOE bursary.) The bursaries usually prohibit students from concurrently holding other bursaries or scholarships, and require them to re-apply every academic year.

NUS’ Student Financial Aid Unit states on their website that the financial aid package is a “partnership involving the student, his/her family and the University”. While this co-payment approach sounds reasonable in theory, in reality many students from low income families still won’t be able to meet the balance of payment even after factoring in the bursaries. They would still have to fork out several thousand dollars each year for tuition fees, books and other living expenses, even if they receive the maximum $2,000 bursary. Part-time work could make up for some of the shortfall, but the money earned may be needed to supplement family income or support siblings, rather than pay their own tuition expenses. In addition, since bursaries need to be renewed every year, the student has no assurance prior to entering university that his or her expenses will be adequately covered for the duration of the 3 or 4 year course. A tuition loan may be an alternative, but it does not reduce the net price of education (in fact it increases because of the interest) and it saddles the student with debt even before he or she has begun working.

In his Budget 2007 speech on 15 February, Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam announced that all Singaporean children aged 7 to 20 will now have a Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA). The PSEA of children of lower income families will be topped up annually with between $200 and $400. While laudable, a simple calculation will show that a child who gets a $400 top up every year from ages 7 to 20 will only have $4,400 their PSEA. This is not enough to pay for even one year of university tuition. In fact, by the time a 7-year old (in 2007) reaches university age, the tuition fees would probably have increased to much more than the current $6,100 a year.

An August 2006 report by the Education Policy Institute in Canada titled “Grants for Students” found that grants are an effective way of increasing access to higher education for low income students. The research revealed that grants tip the cost-benefit ratio of higher education in favour of the “benefits” by offsetting tuition costs and foregone income. In other words, a low income junior college (JC) student who is deciding whether to spend $15,000 to complete university or start working immediately, no longer has to make that decision if he knows that his university education will be covered entirely by grants.

Financial pressure may compel low income students to abandon university plans, enter the workforce and start contributing to family income. One of my friends did well enough in her O levels to get into JC several years ago. However her parents told her plainly that they did not have enough money to sponsor her through university. As a result, she left JC after her first 3 months and went to a polytechnic, which is cheaper than the JC-and-university route. This would probably not have happened had her family been wealthy enough to pay for her university education. In fact, all of my peers from high income backgrounds eventually completed university, even those with average academic ability. Those who didn’t do well enough to enter local institutions completed their studies overseas. Is it fair, then, for someone to miss out on a university education just because her family is not rich?

Singapore‘s economy will continue to rely more and more on knowledge workers. It is therefore imperative for the percentage of university graduates to increase to meet this demand. To improve access to university education, it is time for the government to consider developing a new educational funding structure to fully fund the university education of all students from families with incomes in the bottom 30^th percentile. The payable fees could be slowly increased from the 31^st percentile until the 90^th percentile, with the latter paying full tuition fees.

In my next article, I will outline some of the ways in which this new funding structure could be implemented, even without the need to increase MOE’s overall budget by much.

Resources:

Drunk driver?

I heard a loud crash at 4am below my block. When I looked out, I saw this minivan crashed into a neighbouring block void deck. I can’t fathom how someone could lose control of his vehicle on a relatively straight portion of the road. My only explanation is that he might be drunk.

Update: Sembawang Town Council wrote to me the next day to inform me that they have asked the police to investigate this incident, and will be sending a structural engineer to check out the block. Kudos to SBTC for its quick action.